Jess’ E-Learning Blog

I’ve been looking through the homework I was supposed to do over the holidays. The first activity asks us for our definition of learning. Having spent my first semester of this degree being inundated with ‘definitions’ of learning, several immediately popped into my mind. The one I’ve had most exposure to has been along the lines of ‘learning is shown as a a change in an individual’s behaviour’.

However, I think that this explanation lacks something. While learning a skill can result in using the skill, which is a change of behaviour, and acquiring an attitude can change what we say, do or think, also a change in behaviour, I think that we can learn something without actually demonstrating it.

For instance, I can learn a certain drawing technique (a skill) by watching someone else use the technique. Demonstrating that I can use it is only proving that learning has occurred and is not the sole way I can learn. I may learn a technique, but then realise that I have no opportunity to use it. I have still learnt it, just not applied it. I can learn about a political view, but I don’t have to adopt their attitude in order to do so.

I think that for me, ‘learning’ should not be made explicit - this is, in effect, boxing and restricting what learning consists of if the academic world. Learning is not a mathematical problem, with one single correct solution and therefore should not be boxed into one specific ‘definition’.

However, if I had to give a definition, I would say that learning is the process of acquiring a piece of knowledge, a skill or an attitude, whether this is through formal instruction, discovery, reflection or other means.

Yes, I know… I’m spamming my weblog I thought that I should just write all these posts down in Word, and then post them throughout the week, but I’d rather put everything up now, so I can think about other things the rest of the week ( … like presentations … and reports … and session plans … ).

So, my revelation about MSN is that … It is a lifesaver when one has two group assignments due and can’t meet group mates in person because everyone is on two weeks holidays. Everyone in both of my groups are spread out all over the city, pretty much everyone has a job of some kind and then we all want to go out on Friday night to spend some time with friends. So, there has been no time for anyone to meet up in the past two weeks. Instead, we all hop on MSN when we need to and have a ’silent’ conversation online. It’s really good because we can get everything we need to get done, done, without having to worry about travelling for an hour or more each to meet up somewhere. And we can work on our assignment as we talk, adding bits of suggestions from other group members and organising work over the next week or so. I sound like a promotion for IM but I think that it worked really well for the groups I was in.

I found that there were two problems from my perspective. I tried to keep myself online for as long as possible, purely so that if someone needed to contact me, they could. The problem was that sometimes I needed to talk to someone and they weren’t online. Due to recent updates of the msn system, you can actually leave a message for someone and they will get it when they sign in, but in some situations, I needed an answer urgently and I didn’t know when or if the person would sign in.

The second problem I had was that I couldn’t go to uni, use my laptop to connect wirelessly, and have my MSN work. It has something to do with the way that uni maintains the security of my wireless connection, but it is very annoying. I found a website, meebo, where I could sign in using my MSN account and I should be able to chat as normal. I signed in and tried to chat, but it didn’t work, nobody replied to me… so I was either being ignored, or I wasn’t doing something right.

 Anyway, I think that overall, using IM during the holidays was extremely useful and i will definitely do it again. (and possibly see if I can reference this post in the synchronous technology wiki ^_^)

Just letting you know that I’ve moved some of my posts into different categories, and rearranged some of my categories and sub-categories. It was disorganised, I had some technology types in ‘elesning experiences’ and I was categorising posts from ‘elearning design’ under the technology types. And reflections from this year and last year, all under last year’s subject name

So, now I have reflections for each subject, and bits and pieces relevant to only one class under that class name. All the rest of my categories are out on their own, lonely I think it’s easier that way, even if there are more general categories and less sub-categories.

One question though: Is is bad Netiquette to reorganise like this?

Anne is going to kill me; I haven’t updated in a long time #-_-# sorry! Anyway, this is something I thought of about two weeks ago, but haven’t actually posted yet:

While I’ve been researching and reading a lot about webinars, how they work and what they’re good for, I’ve never actually participated in one before. I was having problems actually understanding the intricacies of what happens in a webinar and I was becoming confused. So, it was an extreemly eye-opening experience when I first saw the ‘inside’ of a webinar and played around in the space.

I think it goes to show that while you can read literature and learn a lot of information about an experience, unless you actually participate in the experience, you really don’t understand it. My ideas on webinars went from these grey, fuzzy, indistinct representations which my mind came up with to a high definition, brightly colored, tactile experience which I could actually use to do the assignment!

I was just reading my las tlbog entry (checking for typos ^_^) when I had a thought. Part of the reason that Second Life is still on the cards for DoCS is that they feel that they can afford to wait an extra few years for the system requirements for SL to come down, while DoCS (perhaps, maybe?) upgrades the NGO computers to ba able to handle SL. 

But, in a few years time, what is the possibility that there be some brand new, fantastic use of the internet for learning which is better for DoCS and the NGO’s than virtual worlds? Or what if the technology to support SL improves, but so does SL’s demand on said technology? Could DoCS possibly be chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

I think that it might be more important to design and implement basic e-learning strategies sooner rather than later, which can then be evaluated and re-designed or added to. This allows for DoCS to make have their first e-learning on a smaller scale, where they can learn a lot about how to implement e-learning in their situation while minimising risks.

I made a bit of an idiot out of myself at class a few weeks ago when we had the presentation in Second Life and our lecturer told us that DoCS is interested in using virtual worlds in training. I just went ahead and blurted out “why?” in front of everyone. To me it was simply black and white - virtual worlds don’t check the ‘must be able to function with limited resources’ box so let’s move on - so i thought what I said was completely logical and warranted.

Until I remembered that what I saw in black and white, DoCS and Anne want us to see in shades of grey. So, just because the technology isn’t up to scratch, doesn’t mean that I should void the whole option. Second Life is great because it provides a social learning environment through interaction with others, which is something the NGO learners relate well to and enjoy. In addition, while a lot of e-learning technologies can feel quite isolating, having your own avatar and being able to see other people’s avatars may facilitate a sense of community and personalism in this type of learning.

I still think that there are problems with using virtual worlds. While download pressures may decline in time, issues such as NGO learner’s trust in and knowledge of computers may not improve. If this is the case, it means that the learners will find it difficult to adapt to the idea of a virtual world - students in my class last year had a hard time wrapping their heads around it, and we’re supposed to be technology savvy - and the quality of learning derived would be low. 

I think that if DoCS is determined to implement virtual worlds, now or in the future, then they will need to set up some initiatives so that learners can gradually become accustomed to computers and the Internet in general before they’re thrown into virtual worlds.

I’ve been thinking about organising my Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) for my Cert IV in training and assessment, and I’m encountering a few problems which are starting to convince me that I really shouldn’t bother trying to do this… or at least not this way.

Firstly, while it may not appear to be huge, with only about a half dozen competencies, the TAA04 has a whole bunch of elements and performance criteria inside those competencies. So, if I manage to find enough evidence to support that I have actually learned all of the content, my final product won’t be big; it will be enormous. 

Which leads to the next problem; an easy way to store all of this, without losing paperwork, is to have it all stored digitally. So I made a wiki and devoted a page to each competency, where I can put copies of all the assignments, letters and other proof I need to prove RPL. But then I realised that putting three years of my schooling on the net could become a big security problem as I’m not really comfortable with people just accessing and using my hard work however they want. Plus, the final product would still be enormous, only intangibly enormous. 

Then, another problem I’ve encountered occurred when I saw the bits and pieces of what I need get to prove RPL. Start with letters from so and so, add specific assignments and then combine with specifically altered assignments. Toss the whole thing in a bowl and garnish with work experience (which I don’t have) and you’re ready to go: provided you pay the required fee when you submit your portfolio of RPL. I haven’t learnt half the elements listed, and I need to go through a lot of beaureacratic red tape to provide evidence of the rest.

And, to top it all off, the certification is only valid for five or so years, after which you have to go through the whole process again…

I don’t think it’s worth going to that much hassle to get the RPL. I do value the certification, but this amount of work is going to interfere with the rest of my university work. I think that I might just go to TAFE after uni, enrol in the TAA04 and apply for exemptions in subjects which I’ve already done.